On Sun 2008-02-24 18:57:32, David Woodhouse wrote:
quoted text
> 
> On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 07:57 +0100, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > Could a na??ve implementation of this get exploited by doing a large
> > number of truncates that just shave single bytes off various files?
> 
> Yeah, which is why _my_ na??ve implementation would do it for
> truncate-to-zero instead of just _any_ truncate (which could even be
> truncate-to-larger).
> 
> A more complex version might allow _any_ transaction to eat into the
> ALLOC_DELETION pool if it is ultimately going to reduce the amount of
> space taken on the file system -- even overwriting 'real' data with
> zeroes which compress better. That's going to be hard to calculate in
> the general case though.
> 
> If allowing only truncate-to-zero isn't good enough, perhaps we could
> allow truncation to use the ALLOC_DELETION pool when it's going to
> obsolete at least one full data node. That's not so hard to check.

I believe truncate-to-zero is good enough.

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/